Hunting vs. Endangered Hunting

margannmks

What are your thoughts on consuming road kill?
[/quote] one of the tastiest deer in our freezer was a roadkill. And if my bow shooting practise tonite is any indication nothing is endangered yet.;)

LadyFlexible

What are your thoughts on consuming road kill?

one of the tastiest deer in our freezer was a roadkill. And if my bow shooting practise tonite is any indication nothing is endangered yet.;)
[/quote]

It's funny. I have a cookbook on road kill.

bkthandler

Hello All!
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/kendall-takes-wild-facebook-controversy

To get a little more opinions of this subject, I wanted to post it on here rather than my hometown area! The link above is a girl who apparently hunts as well as hunt endangered mammals! At first, I was shocked! How can a little gal like that take on a huge-*kitten* elephant hahaha It is pretty sad though seeing her hunt those types of animals (as well as other people who do the same). I am all for hunting deer or whatever type of "legal" wildlife is around during hunting season, but what is the reward for killing an exotic animal?

I am from a rural/country lifestyle community so I get the pros/cons of hunting, but I wanted a more wide variety of opinions on this subject! I am NOT (repeat NOT) trying to start anything or causing ruffled feathers, I am just curious!


Thanks Everyone!

Generally people will get their panties in a wad about OMG, killing threatened animals! Without giving thought to the economic impact. There are a lot of animal refuges in Africa, that need income in order to continue to act as refuges. They also can support a certain amount of animals, otherwise the entire population has the chance to die slowly due to starvation as resources are quickly exhausted.

Some hunters will pay 10-20-30k or more to go down there, hire guides, cooks, stay in hotels, drivers, and then pay to cull an animal that the biologists and managers of that particular refuge have determined they can remove. In most cases, it's a finely tuned thing for very affluent people to indulge in. The refuge gets to survive economically and ecologically, and rich people get to do "cool stuff".

Surprisingly, it is a win for all animals involved, even the one who dies. They avoided a slow lingering death from a large predator, injury, or starvation.

I find nothing wrong with the people going to reserves and keeping them open. My issue is with the hunters who go to the midwest to hunt the high fence deer for the retard racks, and they leave the meat, only wanting the antlers.

Those are who I got beef with.

I actually find the canned hunt part of this type of thing the most disgusting. If culling is necessary is can probably be done without the douchey blood lust.

I don't hunt, but I don't think I should stop someone else from hunting and I live in an area where culling of deer is necessary for both drivers and the deer themselves.

On all other hunting matters I defer to a good friends husband who is an avid hunter and successful. His opinions of canned hunts and the people who do them is not printable on these pages.

Objecting to what is almost a fashion shoot with a dead animal does not mean everyone objects to actual responsible hunting.

LadyFlexible

Also you assume nature has a sense of balance.
Let me give you a hint. It doesn't. You're assuming that because wolves are there suddenly they are going to thin the herds by taking only what they need during a certain time. Let me clear things up with you. Wolves have been known to slaughter entire herds and not because they were hungry but because they got a dopamine high.

Actually, nature does have a sense of balance. If wolves depopulate a region of prey they will have less food which will in turn cull their numbers. IOW, the rate of change of a wolf population is positively affected by the deer population and the rate of change of the deer population is negatively affected by the wolf population.

It's a system of linear differential equations. Its solution, assuming a reasonable initial state and certain conditions on the surrounding ecosystem, is an oscillating equilibrium. Queenbish should know more about this than I do.

Maybe sense of balance isn't the right word.
I'd have to say considering nature is always changing, I wouldn't call that balanced. It might put up an appearance but appearances are deceiving

Queen Bish, when you say human impact. What do you mean? What are you comparing and on what scale?
A specie's impact isn't always good or completely good even for itself, no? Just as it isn't always bad or completely bad?

ninerbuff

Dear Posters,

I wanted to offer a brief explanation for the locking of this thread. This discussion is welcome to continue in groups.

The forum guidelines include this item:

15. Divisive Topics Are Better Suited For Groups, Not the Main Forums

Divisive topics and posts, particularly those that seek input from or are relevant only to a select group of users, are better placed within an appropriate Group rather than the Main Forums. For example, topics relevant to only one religion should not be placed on the main forums but rather within a group related to that religion.


If you would like to review the forum guidelines, please visit the following link:

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/welcome/guidelines

At our discretion, this locked thread may be deleted entirely in the near future.

Thread is bordering on becoming a debate between vegan/non vegans.

With respect,
Ninerbuff